Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They both have big city feels but they're not comparable. Seattle is in the same league with Charlotte when it comes to big city feel. DC is often tiered with SF and other cities.
Washington DC is an alpha world class city...... No they are not comparable. You're just being ridiculous now. As a WHOLE city, Seattle lacks the big city feel DC has all around OUTSIDE of downtown.
They both have big city feels but they're not comparable. Seattle is in the same league with Charlotte when it comes to big city feel. DC is often tiered with SF and other cities.
The same league as Charlotte? This proves you have absolutely no idea.
And funny you should mention San Francisco, as that is the closest comparison to Downtown Seattle. D.C. on the other hand could not be more different than Downtown San Francisco.
You should check out Seattle sometime, then you will understand.
The same league as Charlotte? This proves you have absolutely no idea.
And funny you should mention San Francisco, as that is the closest comparison to Downtown Seattle. D.C. on the other hand could not be more different than Downtown San Francisco.
You should check out Seattle sometime, then you will understand.
Yep. Seattle has a much greater downtown than Charlotte. Much larger walkable, urban grid. Infinitely more street level retail options. And it's not just the difference in size, it's in the quality and character of its architecture around Pioneer Sq and its cobbled streets near Pike Place. Seattle's financial district and adjacent Pike Place market is closer in it sights, sounds, and smells to San Francisco than Charlotte.
The same league as Charlotte? This proves you have absolutely no idea.
And funny you should mention San Francisco, as that is the closest comparison to Downtown Seattle. D.C. on the other hand could not be more different than Downtown San Francisco.
You should check out Seattle sometime, then you will understand.
LOL no I meant dense neighborhoods sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant outside of downtown.
In urbanity? I don't believe so. Not only is DC's urban core larger, but there are many more urban cores in the outside of the city. Although Seattle does have a few, it's just not on the same level. Which I think is fine.
And here you go again with the single family home obsession. You clearly have not been to Seattle.
As I have previously stated, you set the bar in these discussions at a level that is unrealistic for all but a handful of places.
I have no desire to slice and dice density figures, census tracts or available vacant retail square footage available for lease in 'Greater' Downtown D.C.
The premise here is which place can give you a better urban experience. My un-changeable opinion being familiar with both is that Seattle provides a much superior one in every way, with the exception of rail-based transit.
That bar sets the standard for which cities are judged when it comes to urbanity worldwide. There are bench mark cities for all types of urbanity and then all other cities are rated for how close they get to those pinnacle cities. New York, Tokyo, Paris, London etc. are the pinnacle cities. All cities are judged by how close or far they are from those cities. Keep in mind, they're all designed different, however, they all follow the required urban design principals to be considered an urban city. The street and building relationship forms a street wall across the entire urban core. The cities are mixed use intertwined with rail transit to move millions of people in and out and around. Buildings are built to “zero lot” specs to maintain density, vibrancy, and walkability. Buildings have first floor retail where possible.
There are 6 cities in the U.S. that should not be compared with any other cities in the U.S. when it comes to urbanity or anything else relating to their built form because, as you have said, no other cities are built like them. They are New York City, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
That bar sets the standard for which cities are judged when it comes to urbanity worldwide. There are bench mark cities for all types of urbanity and then all other cities are rated for how close they get to those pinnacle cities. New York, Tokyo, Paris, London etc. are the pinnacle cities. All cities are judged by how close or far they are from those cities. Keep in mind, they're all designed different, however, they all follow the required urban design principals to be considered an urban city. The street and building relationship forms a street wall across the entire urban core. The cities are mixed use intertwined with rail transit to move millions of people in and out and around. Buildings are built to “zero lot” specs to maintain density, vibrancy, and walkability. Buildings have first floor retail where possible.
There are 6 cities in the U.S. that should not be compared with any other cities in the U.S. when it comes to urbanity or anything else relating to their built form because, as you have said, no other cities are built like them. They are New York City, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
Exactly. I don't even see how this is being debated right now, all they are using is there downtown argument. The poll results speaks for itself.
Having lived in DC (and currently considering a job opportunity in Seattle), I will posit that the downtown feel shouldn't be much of a consideration. What is great about DC are the neighborhoods surrounding downtown, and the ease of mobility. A lot of people will complain about Metro, but in all seriousness, it is incredibly easy to get around DC.
The ease of mobility means you can get downtown when/if you need to, and easily visit other neighborhoods. When I lived in DC, I never turned down a social opportunity because it was too hard to get to. This even includes traveling to first-ring suburbs like Arlington and Silver Spring. When I lived there, I took for granted how well all of the different neighborhoods are connected - and how the compactness of DC supports that. Now that I live in Chicago, where it takes a lot longer to get between neighborhoods, I have a better appreciation for DC's size.
DC's downtown may lack the shopping of other major city downtowns, but it is pretty cool to work downtown, and go sit on the National Mall during your lunch break. Can't do that in a lot of other places...
I lived in DC from 2005 to mid 2010, then I went to Chicago from mid 2010-early 2012, and came right back to DC and am still here. I have the exact same feelings as you do. It is easier to get around DC without a car than Chicago too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
